On 07/14/2017 09:34 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stefan Berger (stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
On 07/13/2017 08:38 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 07/13/2017 01:49 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
My big question right now is can you implement Ted's suggested
restriction. Only one security.foo or secuirty.foo@... attribute ?
We need to raw-list the xattrs and do the check before writing them. I am fairly sure this can be done.
So now you want to allow security.foo and one security.foo@uid=<> or just a single one security.foo(@[[:print:]]*)?
The latter.
That case would prevent a container user from overriding the xattr
on the host. Is that what we want? For limiting the number of xattrs
Not really. If the file is owned by a uid mapped into the container,
then the container root can chown the file which will clear the file
capability, after which he can set a new one. If the file is not
owned by a uid mapped into the container, then container root could
not set a filecap anyway.
Let's say I installed a container where all files are signed and thus
have security.ima. Now for some reason I want to re-sign some or all
files inside that container. How would I do that ? Would I need to get
rid of security.ima first, possibly by copying each file, deleting the
original file, and renaming the copied file to the original name, or
should I just be able to write out a new signature, thus creating
security.ima@uid=1000 besides the security.ima ?
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
